Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then it depends what the OP is asking. I'm not going to read his mind, what he meant, because it's getting vague. I see no point in continuing this debate.
Height, Scenery, Greenery, Variety, etc...
Talking about the actually mountains themselves, a lot of people seem to be picking the Alps just because they are in Europe.
Talking about the actually mountains themselves, a lot of people seem to be picking the Alps just because they are in Europe.
I'm not, though it's hard to separate the setting from the mountains, especially two mountain ranges as opposite as the Alaska Range and the Alps.
One gives you a wilderness experience with the mountains, the other an easy to access, lots of history nad culture, with some attractive towns at the mountains' feet but also lots and lots of development.
Prominence is easy to measure, but I'm not sure if it's the best way to assess the "impressiveness" of a mountain. Never been to Alaska, but in the Alps, the most prominent mountain, Mt Blanc, didn't feel all that impressive in person. It might stand 4 km above the valley, I didn't get that "wow" factor, even though the valley feels rather claustrophobic. Found this place or that one more impressive.
I like the spire measure list that I keep posting, which ranks the Alps rather high. By range, the Alps does better than the Alaska Range by that measure. But the Alaska Range has two peaks (Denali is one, obviously) that rank better than any Alps peak. Mt. Blanc ranks very high but below two shorter Alps peaks that deserve #1 and #2 (you can guess them probably). Perhaps it's the angle, and shorter peaks are blocking the view? The elevation difference between Chamonix and Mt Blanc is enormous. The "this place" link looks really impressive and not developed (at least from what I can see). A bit like the North Cascades, but grander. Oh wait... there's a lodge at the end of the road:
Still not too bad, I imagine that past that it gets quiet on whatever trail there is. The second link, the "that one" looks like an awesome bicycle road. Not exactly developed, but seeing farmland at the foot of a mountain looks wrong to me, especially a big one. More so than that lodge, which is just one building in a forest. I'm used to preserved land. Even here out east, often there's farmland 4-5 miles away, but right near it's preserved land, making the mountain more of an away from everything in its world. And I associate bigger mountains = more remote, perhaps that's being American, but it feels like it fits with mountain.
I select European Alps without a doubt and no hesitation for plenty of specific reasons. Geographic area right in middle of Europe is very pleasant and wonderful, including close proximity of travel destinations. There is French Alps, Swiss Alps, Austrian Alps, German Alps, and Italian Alps that all have a unique vibrant culture in each separate country, and cities/towns of Lyon, Grenoble, Chamonix, Innsbruck, Saint Moritz, Lugano, and Trento.
Mountains there have more lush forests in a lower elevation, more tolerable climate, and unique formations of mountains blending together in environment very well. Those castles in Bavaria Germany are magical, and reminiscent of a royal castle renaissance.
Some areas of European Alps really feels like a utopia based on culture, scenery, and quality of life, especially in Lyon, Grenoble, Innsbruck.
Those mountains in Alaska are way too isolated, and not really in a desirable location with an especially harsh, and inhospitable climate. I don't have enough incentives to visit mountains in Alaska, except maybe for cruise ship travel along coastal Alaska.
Then again, why would I go on a cruise ship to somewhere in coastal Alaska that has no summer weather? I rather travel on a cruise ship to destinations like Tahiti French Polynesia, Fiji, Southeast Asia, or Mediterranean Europe.
The question is "Which mountain range is more beautiful, bigger, taller, picturesque looking?" but now we are talking about cities, castles, roads, etc.
With all this talk about the beauty of the Alps, I am surprised nobody talked about the immense beauty and jagged peaks towering right above the ocean from Juneau.. It's funny how they solely compare one of the many peaks of the Alaska rnage, Mt McKinley, to the entire Alp range, which is unfair. Also, Alaska is not quite as underdeveloped as people say, but it is not a hustling and bustling metropolis in the mountains.. I grew up in Oregon and live in Washington and I appreciate the remoteness of the wilderness areas and rather them stay pristine and untouched, the way the wilderness is suppose to be. If I want to be in an amusement park I can go to Disney World. This is not to discredit the Alps, they are gorgeous and majestic and the ancient villages are a sight to behold.
Nonetheless, I think people severely underrate the beauty and majesty of the Alaskan mountains and overrate the jagged peaks of the Alps. Many do not realize how giant of a state Alaska is and how many various types of mountain ranges run throughout Alaska.
Also, many people have overlooked the Canadian Cascades and I think some are mixing it with the Canadian Rockies.
Mount St Elias and Mt McKinley are just two of many Alaskan peaks.
I still find it hard for any mountains to compare with the beauty of the mountain ranges around Juneau. Juneau receives more rain than most anywhere in Europe and the valleys and mountains at lower elevation are very lush and green, as much or more than even the Swiss Alps.
Speaking of which, can you get a view of the ocean with a backdrop of giant mountains in the Alps? Didn't think so!
To compare Alaska to the Alps is a bit of Apples vs Oranges.. Alaska is like a mix of the Alps, Norway and the Himalayas all in one.. It truly is unique and in a class of its own.. The Alps is just one small mountain range and you can fit dozens of Alps ranges in Alaska.
Last edited by Rozenn; 11-04-2014 at 05:05 PM..
Reason: Copyright issues
Not only Rakaposhi, also Nanga Parbat, Dhaulagiri, Annapurna...and more
Anyway Denalis biggest vertical rise is overrated, it isn't 18000 feet like they say, it's only 15000 feet then comes the glacier with the mountain called Peters Dome on the other side.
It's still bigger than any mountain in the Alps though.
Explain to me how a mountain's vertical rise can exceed its prominence. It is nonsense. It can only be done if you measure the height of a mountain from one side only, from the bottom of a river canyon that was formed long after the mountain was formed, which is silly. The vertical relief of a single face of a mountain can exceed its prominece but not the vertical rise of the whole mountain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.